My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - #52
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
06/06/2023 Regular & HA
>
Correspondence - #52
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2023 4:19:01 PM
Creation date
6/5/2023 11:38:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
6/6/2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
information. Based on the 6/30/21 financials, it puts our deficit (money needed to pay bills) at $565M which is close, <br />although not exactly at, the unrestricted net position balance at the same period per the above. Their breakdown is <br />useful, although because of pandemic funds and an increasing investment market, our 6/30/22 1 expect will be <br />better. Truth in Accounting grades us as a D.... and at 50t" in the nation out of 75 (#1 is best btw). <br />Even though I say that each resident's share of the city's deficit is about $1500, they have it pegged at $5600. Their <br />population basis is only those in the city that have a positive federal tax burden per the IRS. I believe for our city, that <br />reducing the spread of the burden from about 300K people to only about 100K people. I personally think that is not <br />appropriate to spread the city debt burden across all residents though for a city especially because our city revenue is <br />driven more by sales tax, property taxes, and other non -income tax related items. The theme is the same though ... each <br />of us is in debt and we don't even know it. <br />Here is their analysis of our city: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.